Are You Convinced Romney Will Align His Political Party Against Abortion?

It seems to me Romney if he becomes the next President of the United States will only come half way on his Pro-Life stance. He has already plublically declared that he’s all for abortion in cases a rape and incest..

Romney position on Abortion
Romney previously supported a woman’s right to decide, but he is now adamantly opposed to abortions, unless it involves cases of rape, incest or if the mother’s life is in mortal danger.

Romney: My views on abortion rights are clear

However; the decision rests with the courts.

On Same Sex Issues and LGBT he’s stand’s by his moral religious convictions of being against it but stops short of doing anything politically to stiffle any legal process on the rights of Same Sex Issues.

I understand his personal convictions being against Abortion and Same-Sex Issues but that’s pretty much where it ends. That fact that he supports Abortion for rape and incest victims sends mixed messages to me on his moral stance.

Perhaps someone can clarify what I’m lacking in hindsight.

I believe Romney is being a politician.
He believes this is the view that will get him the most votes. Pro-life people will vote for him because Obama is far worse when it comes to this issue. And some people who are pro-choice but otherwise politically conservative. He’s hoping they will be able to overlook this for the sake of their other issues. He’s playing both sides of the plate. That being said, I’m voting for Romney, because I believe his policies are less against life than Obama’s.

Other churches need to take a stand. Up until the 1930s, abortion and contraceptions were sins in the Protestant churches too. That changed. They need to change it back. I don’t know how successful any one will be with this considering people in other churches have been told to follow their own consciences. The Catholic Church needs to excommunicate those who promote it and we need to take issue with those Catholics who promote Democrats who promote abortion etc. It can’t be left up to one man nor to one party.

To answer your question…No, I am not convinced.

What I am convinced of is that Supreme Court Justices that are appointed by Romney will be substantially more willing to overturn RvW than anyone Obama nominates.

And, since DOMA and same sex marriage will most likely be coming before the court, that too is an area of concern. There too, I am convinced that Romney will appoint Justices that are substantially more inclined to rule in ways more consistant with Natural Law.

That said, I would have MUCH preferred Rick Santorum to be the next President.

The republicans who are being elected (and were elected in 2010) are not part of the
“establishment” republicans. I believe they will make it easier for Romney to follow
through. Certainly a lot more so than Obama.

Facts, not opinions:

  1. Since Roe v Wade, not ONE Supreme Court Justice nominated by a Democrat has remotely been interested in overturning that travesty of judicial overreach. The republicans haven’t been much better than 60% positive, but a 60% record is rather better than ZERO percent, no? ONLY a Supreme Court decision can change Roe (constitutional amendments are really no longer politically feasible in this age - OK, that part is opinion.). No president or Congress can outlaw abortion while the SC still upholds Roe.
  2. The president has enormous power over foreign policy. Obama has opened the taps to funding the promoters of abortion overseas. Romney has explicitly promised to restore the Mexico City policy by which ZERO taxpayer dollars are used for abortion related purposes overseas.
  3. HHS Mandate. Obama established the current HHS mandate by which catholic organizations will be required to provide and pay for (via insurance) their employees sterilizations and contraception (including early abortive drugs - defined as those that lead to the death of conceived human life, not necessarily implanted in the uterous yet. Many in the medical profession pretend that these are not abortive since they conveniently define pregnancy as beginning at implantation, not conception).
  4. The Obama administration has made abortion cooperation a litmus test for NGO’s seeking to collaborate with the USA on foreign aid (see the revocation of the Catholic Relief Services contract for refugee aid). This is a total break with past policies of BOTH parties in which NGO partnerships with religious organizations were permitted as long as the NGO in question achieved the stated primary mission of the aid in question. Essentially, the Obama has made the export of abortion services a “primary” purpose of US foreign aid. Yuck.

It’s hard for me to conceive of how any rational person of good will could conclude that there is little to no difference between the two current candidates on the matter of abortion.

I’m not convinced, no. But I am convinced of the other candidate’s stand on abortion, and that’s enough for me.

You’ve hit the nail on the head. Romney has been on virtually every side of every issue, but is less terrible on the abortion issue than Obama. Sad when it comes down to that kind of choice.

Of course, any appointee will have to be approved by the Senate, and it would likely be a highly partisan vote. If Romney was elected, but the Senate still had a Democratic majority, it would likely not end well were the nominee to be pro-life.

Which is why I am supporting all of the Republican Senate candidates. Most are
conservative and pro-life and are being bombarded with negative ads. This tells me that
the other side is aware of the above fact.

**Anything **would be better for Pro - Life issues in the Presidency than what we have now…

Given the fact that I’m not an American my voice won’t add any weight in what I have to say anyway.

If I was an American Catholic I’d most likely vote for Romney because his morality stance against Abortion and what you have articulated here in your entire post.

However; how is it you seem to infer Romney being far on the conservative side of morality on the issue of abortion. “Too me his stance on supporting abortion for rape an incest victims” is no small issue particularly in speaking about United States. Sure Obama flaunts infuencial support on abortion in his foriegn policies. But other nations are wholly and morally responsible for their own moral choices over abortion dispite outside influences. Respectfully; I don’t see a massive marginal difference on abortion issues between Obama and Romney except dialogue. Romney only deserves the Catholic vote by a slim margin IMHO hoping that such decision would be the right moral Catholic one. Romney’s interest in building up the U.S. Military as a show of force doesn’t create a display of global peace initiatives before other superpowers.

You may not realize that the “Mexico City” policy which banned US money going to other
countries for abortion was one of the FIRST things that Obama rescinded. He had
promised that and other abortion “relaxing” laws to his Planned Parenthood “buddiesas”
and he complied. To this day and increasing in these last few days, PP is pouring
massive amounts in ads against pro-life candidates and in support of Obama.
We do not consider the rape and incest support a small issue, but we know that Romney
will not continue to support public monies going to PP, or to Obamacare and that is
huge. No, he’s not a perfect candidate but in comparison, he’s far, far, far better than
Obama. No way is that a “slim” margin.

Also along those lines, our Texas governor, Rick Perry had held the same views on
rape and incest until this past summer when he watched a video put out by Gov.
Huckabee. Now Rick Perry is completely pro-life, but even before his record here in Texas
was very pro-life.

centurion, the issue you articulate above are why I didn’t vote Romney in the primary elections earlier this year. But I lost that battle and Romney beat my guy who was more solidly catholic in a variety of policy issues. In my opinion, the current election system in America really requires you to vote for the better candidate of the two major parties in the general election. The time for idealistic purity is in the primaries. When it comes time for the general election, you hold your nose and do your best to keep the worst guy out of office.

I am convinced Romeny will do something abotu abortion because of

*]The trust that pro life individuals and organisations have given Mitt Romney by their many endorsements

*]Romney’s track record in defending religious liberty for Catholic hospitals; voting pro life; and defending marriage between 1 woman and 1 man as governor

*]Romney has a pro life vice president next to his side, Paul Ryan

What is the alternative, even if you harbor doubts?

We know Obama stands against Catholic teaching on nearly every non-negotiable. Pro-abortion, pro-stem embryonic cell research, pro-gay marriage. That, coupled with policies that have hurt the poor, and increased their numbers. If Obama had a great track record on helping the poorest among us, I could almost see why you’d ask the questions.

But to that end, why ask? The alternative helps neither the unborn, nor the poor.

Bush was able to get good nominees like Robertson in despite either DEM control or the ability of DEMs to filibuster.

You mean Chief Justice John Roberts. (I imagine that many folks who used to think he was a “good nominee” don’t any longer, given his stance on Obamacare…)

Justices sometimes do just the opposite of what one might expect.

Tangent: Roberts made no ruling on whether Obamacare was a good idea or if specific formulations of rules under the authority established within Obamacare are legal. The challenge at hand in that decision was whether Congress exceeded its authority in the specific portion of Obamacare which requires Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine.

He followed clear strict constructionist principles in that ruling and shouldn’t be called ‘squishy’ on abortion for it. Conservatives can hardly complain that Roberts hasn’t committed judicial activism on their behalf. He merely said that Congress DID act within its authority under the Constitution. From his point of view, it would have been judicial activism to use the bench to overturn duly passed law. He has yet to be on a case that explicitly challenges abortion or religious liberty. So hold your judgement until he is.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit